Security Debrief » Ideology and Public Diplomacyhttp://securitydebrief.com
A Homeland Security BlogThu, 08 Dec 2016 13:43:54 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1Keep a Cool Head, Remember Your Sweater, and Be Kindhttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/07/05/keep-a-cool-head-remember-your-sweater-and-be-kind/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/07/05/keep-a-cool-head-remember-your-sweater-and-be-kind/#commentsTue, 05 Jul 2016 16:01:39 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16475I get it, people are angry. Most recently, many in Great Britain are angry about the Brexit outcome. Forget that many of these same people voted for it, as an expression of frustration, not thinking it would become reality.

Now that reality has set in, they are baffled as to why they can’t do a “do-over.” A large, vocal constituency is angry about “politics as usual” (the meaning of which differs depending on whom you ask) resulting in a primary outcome that, now in the light of day, they aren’t really sure about. You guessed it, many now want a “do-over,” or at least an alternative candidate, thus portending a, you guessed it, angry convention. Or for those who thrive on the theater of anger, fresh blood-letting entertainment during the summer rerun season.

Every night on television, we witness recaps of members of Congress being angry at members of the other party because they simply can’t see it their way—the only and, of course, right way. All find a voice for their anger through Twitter and the ever-expanding range of emojis. In short, forget informed discussion, perspective, and compromise when you can enjoy (and share) the cathartic expression of anger, broadly and instantly.

However, anger is not a solution. Nor does it ever result in a good one. That’s the problem with anger. It’s a negative emotion that clouds rationale thinking. Anger as a response to anxiety or frustration burns hotly and then what are you left with? A pile of useless ashes…and more times than not, regret. Unfortunately, on the national and world stages, there are no “do-overs.” At least, similar to the aftermath of hurtful words spewed during an argument, not for a long time, and with lingering implications. Quite frankly, despite my usual Pollyanna optimism, the impact of all this anger on our nation’s future has me worried.

That said, every now and then something happens that renews my faith in the future. I recently had the privilege of presenting awards at two fifth grade promotion ceremonies that recognized, among other things, good citizenship. Both ceremonies, at different schools, left me with a feeling of, well, happiness. And the confidence that these kids “got it.” At one of the schools, the graduating fifth graders left messages for those coming behind them “to not be afraid to try new things,” “always do the best that you can,” “be kind,” and “always remember a sweater.”

I take the latter to be a reminder to be prepared for anything, but sound advice, regardless. “Be kind” was repeated by many of the kids, and it was reflected in how excited they were for one another as awards were given out or pictures from the past 6 years flashed on the screen. “Be kind.” What an interesting concept.
At one of the schools, the principal read to the audience from a bookmark that was being placed in each of the student’s report cards. It read:

That bookmark has become my daily mantra. It hangs from a shelf above my laptop, so that I see it every day. That and the six-word memoir written by one student that sagely summed up life to now, “sometimes it’s a lemon, sometimes it’s candy.”

What does all this have with national security? Everything. How we think, speak and act now will become normal behavior, and eventually, our destiny. A destiny of anger, resentment of others, and a tacit permission to engage in vitriol and ad hominem attacks instead of listening, discussing, debating, and even accepting different perspectives to reach solutions to very real problems that impact the security of our nation and the principals that serve as our foundation.

Since the Puritans, we have striven to be that “City upon a Hill.” A nation that believes in freedom from oppression, pursuit of justice, and the opportunity to be the best that we can be. We’ve stumbled at times, but we have always, always gone back to the principals of our founding fathers, working even harder to be that City upon a Hill.

I certainly don’t want decisions that affect my future and those I care about (that includes this country and planet, by the way) being made in anger. I certainly don’t intend to vote that way. I only hope that we can be good stewards of all that makes this country great, until those fifth graders are in leadership positions. They’ve got my vote!

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/07/05/keep-a-cool-head-remember-your-sweater-and-be-kind/feed/0Justice Dept. Redacting the Truth…and Common Sensehttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/21/justice-dept-redacting-the-truth-and-common-sense/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/21/justice-dept-redacting-the-truth-and-common-sense/#commentsTue, 21 Jun 2016 12:04:18 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16458It goes without saying there are some things that the public should not know about. Classified intelligence, including sources and methods of intelligence gathering and military operations; sensitive law enforcement details that are crucial to an investigation; the names and identities of juveniles or sexual assault victims—these are just a few of the categories that show demonstrable measures of common sense in keeping things out of the public eye.

As grounded as those categories might be, one wonders whether the Justice Department possesses any common sense at all given its decision to redact portions of the 9-1-1 calls of the Orlando nightclub shooter. In those calls, he not only admitted his crimes but pledged his allegiance to ISIL. Based upon multiple press briefings by law enforcement officials and investigators, we all knew what the killer had to say, but the Justice Department, for reasons it had trouble explaining to the media and general public, saw fit to redact the released transcripts of the killer’s conversations. Under howls of protest from the media, Congress and even the public, someone from the Justice Department saw fit to issue a new set of transcripts – this time with nothing redacted so that the public could see and read for itself what the killer had on his mind that tragic Sunday morning at the Pulse nightclub.

Public trust in government is at all-time lows. That is for a number of reasons, but the ability to embrace common sense and sharing the obvious seem to be factors that are difficult to grasp when it comes to information sharing.

Truth can be, and is often, difficult to accept. It puts people on the spot, like CNN’s Anderson Cooper did with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi when he aggressively interviewed her last week about her stance on LGBT issues. For as tough as the interview was, Cooper did his research, shared his points, and Bondi had the opportunity to respond and defend her positions accordingly. It was one of those rare instances of good journalism where tough questions were put to powerful people, and they had to respond on the spot (rather than have their egos polished and personalities stroked during a live TV shot).

As much as I agree with the Justice Department’s wish to not give the Orlando killer or ISIL any free publicity by sharing their words, knowing the truth and facts of their proclamations is something we need to hear, see and contend with. Ignoring them, masking the words, or redacting them from public view does nothing to fully inform the public of the cancerous threat these types of individuals are to our way of life. It also does not inspire or reinforce public confidence in the leadership of the agencies in dealing with a very real public threat.

Truth is a powerful force, and it’s essential in a free and open society. So is common sense. I hope the next time the Justice Department, or any other government agency, considers redacting such information from future transcripts, it will have more respect for the publics’ ability to hear the truth and the common sense of how to interpret it. They didn’t this time and now have to spend valuable time explaining why they didn’t when they could be working to help us better understand how we can mitigate such evil in the future. Time, truth and common sense can dictate what makes for a better investment in the future.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/21/justice-dept-redacting-the-truth-and-common-sense/feed/0Muhammad Ali – A Service in a Time of Needhttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/10/muhammad-ali-a-service-in-a-time-of-need/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/10/muhammad-ali-a-service-in-a-time-of-need/#commentsFri, 10 Jun 2016 19:00:03 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16432While we are country founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, religion plays a significant part in American life. One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, went so far as to codify the rights of Americans to be able to freely and peacefully assemble to the faith of their own choosing when he drafted the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Within our borders, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, etc. are all able to gather and pray (or not gather or pray) to the deity of their choosing. While that concept of freedom of worship is something we take for granted today, it was a revolutionary concept just a few centuries ago.

I thought of that as I watched the memorial service of boxing legend Muhammad Ali. As passionate as the iconic man was for his adopted religion of Islam, he was probably even more passionate about the humanity he shared with different people around the globe. Can you ever recall any type of religious service that brought so many different beliefs under one roof to honor one individual?

It was one of those very rare moments when we as a country, and certainly as a planet, quietly paused and brought together different voices and beliefs to reflect on the life and accomplishments of an extraordinary human being. Not since the funeral of Saint John Paul II in April 2005 with hundreds of foreign heads of state and several dozen religious leaders have we seen a gathering like Ali’s farewell.

As sad as Ali’s loss is, the service that celebrated his life could not have come at a better time. As it’s plain to see, our nation is bitterly divided along political fault lines that only seem to grow wider each day. Adding to the divisions are cultural and societal changes that are both cheered and jeered from almost every corner. That is on top of the lingering prejudices that sadly still exist between races, religions and genders, that are somehow never able to dissipate.

Yet, for one brief shining moment on our planet, it was a wonderful feeling to have so many different voices, cultures and religions come together to offer their praise and thanksgiving for a remarkable life of positive difference. Sadly, we don’t have many of those collective moments, but if there was ever a time we needed it to happen, this was a great time for it to take place.

Religion is certainly not without its controversy or challenge. In fact more people have probably died in the name of God than the pursuit of Gold (but it’s probably close). But for as different as our belief systems may be, there is more that unites us than divides. That’s a premise often overlooked and forgotten, especially in politics, but Ali, by virtue of his actions, presence and personality was one of those people who could transcend differences of race, religion, ethnicity and even geography. He certainly had his detractors and by no means was perfect but try and think of the last time we all stopped to reflect upon such a life.

Lives such as Ali’s are few and far between, which is probably why he was such a transcendent and beloved figure. But if you looked at how different the people are who prayed and eulogized about the man, their diversity is amazing. There are any number of reasons why the people assembled at the Louisville Memorial Service would never interact with the other, but it only took one particular life to bring those differences into a moment of uniformity.

If there are lessons I draw from Ali’s life, it is that it takes courage and guts to want to find unity and commonality with those who pray, look, act and sound differently from me. That is not an ethos you will see promulgated by ISIL or any other extremist group who singularly believe their way of life and belief is the only one to be lived. That’s a life and existence devoid of respect, compassion and the thing that Ali seemed to celebrate the most – humanity.

How cool is it to bring so many different voices in praising God in so many different ways? I don’t think there is any US President alive or dead who could have done that but a kid who had his bike stolen at an early age did and was bold enough to tell the world he was “the greatest.”

I would say he proved it and taught us all how much more we have that brings us together than tears us apart. That’s a message I heard in Ali’s life and Memorial Service and it could not have come at a better time for us to hear and remember.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/10/muhammad-ali-a-service-in-a-time-of-need/feed/0An Open Letter to Non-Muslim Americanshttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/06/an-open-letter-to-non-muslim-americans/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/06/an-open-letter-to-non-muslim-americans/#commentsMon, 06 Jun 2016 22:52:24 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16405There is a highly organized anti-Islamic movement in the United States. Its participants are aggressive, vocal and view all Muslims as a threat to liberal democracy. They are proactive on social media, and they are remarkably fast in adding hateful comments onto any piece of digital content that mentions Islam. They have come to Security Debrief on more than one occasion to empty their verbal trashcans in the comments section, and what they write is quite simply hate speech—cherry-picking religious passages to suit their arguments, making generalizations so broad they are outright lies, re-interpreting history to present a false narrative that pits people against one another.

Sounds a lot like what ISIS and other terrorist groups do in their recruitment efforts, doesn’t it?

Extremism threatens us all, whether it comes in the form of violence or in the form of intolerance and hate. It is the duty of every American to push back against extremism in all its manifestations. As John Stuart Mill said more than a century ago:

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”

It’s easy enough to counter the arguments of the anti-Islamic movement. They don’t have any real understanding of the religion—only rhetoric, faulty quotations, and fear- and hate-mongering messages. Yet, hundreds of learned people have rushed to the public square to argue against these extremist narratives and with little result. Debates against anti-Muslim extremists usually only serve to heighten their message.

This is not an academic problem. It has a real impact on Americans.

For example, when my fellow Security Debrief contributor Erroll Southers and I first began working with the Somali-American community in Minneapolis-St. Paul, we were offered a sobering insight: the Muslim community in the Twin Cities is afraid to talk about their religion, even within their own homes and their places of worship. More specifically, they are afraid to talk about (as well as critique) the notion of jihad, which is an Islamic concept (though not necessarily, or even usually, violent). Several sources reported that Imams are afraid to discuss violent jihad and why it is wrong for fear that their audience will say in a later conversation, “My Imam was talking about jihad and…” It does not matter what comes after “and;” the mere mention of the word jihad (even in the negative) strikes fear that the FBI will kick in someone’s door in the middle of the night. (And yes, they do that in Minneapolis, sometimes without much cause.)

Meanwhile, parents are afraid to discuss this topic with their children (at a time when ISIS and others are proactively targeting their children for radicalization) for fear they will go to school and say, “My mom and dad were talking about jihad and…” And here comes the FBI.

This environment of fear prohibits the necessary religious discussions that happen with every other religion in every household across the country. In a very real way, the anti-Islamic movement and the constant anti-Islamic sentiments that are emerging in this heated election cycle are depriving Muslim Americans of their right to liberty and freedom from oppression. Simply because someone is not legally precluded from a God-given right does not mean they aren’t oppressed. If you’re not Muslim, imagine being afraid to discuss your faith with your children. Is that the mark of a free country?

The anti-Islamic movement can and should receive responses from educated people who can pick apart the falsehoods in their narratives, but this is not enough. All Americans of every faith—no matter their knowledge of Islam—have an opportunity this month to show their fellow citizens that this country is still a land where people of all faiths can peacefully and respectfully live together. It’s simple to express this; it only takes two words: Happy Ramadan.

If there is an aspect to Islam that is undeniably good, it’s Ramadan. The annual practice of fasting during daylight hours is designed to remind all those who observe it that there are many people in this world who do not have the luxury of eating every day. The purpose of Ramadan is to be viscerally aware of how painful it is to go without food and water, and from that, extract the empathy needed to engender a proactive, faithful community that looks after those in need. This is an admirable act of faith. It cannot be twisted by the anti-Islamic movement. There is no message to spin. It is inherently good.

It is also an opportunity. The United States remains Christian majority, and during Christmas and Easter, it is common (if not expected) that Christians (and even secular folks) will exchange the greetings, Merry Christmas and Happy Easter. Think of the positivity, the connectedness, the sense of unity that is borne of wishing someone a happy holiday. It reaches beyond the everyday social exchanges; it touches something intensely personal. It is a point of bonding between citizens.

That is precisely what we need at a time when our fellow citizens who are Muslim feel that they are somehow distinct from the Nation, somehow not quite as American as non-Muslims. We, non-Muslim Americans, need to proactively show that we respect and encourage the beliefs of our countrymen and women; we need to express the unity that has made this country the greatest and freest in the history of the world. And we can do that in a way that is meaningful, respectful and does not require any knowledge of Islam by simply saying to our Muslim friends, colleagues, coworkers, and acquaintances, Happy Ramadan. For those who wish to use a more traditional phrase, you can say Ramadan Kareem or Ramadan Mubarak, which both basically mean Happy Ramadan. You can also say “salam,” which means peace.

In the United States, it does not matter what faith you espouse provided you agree that each of us is born with inalienable rights that must be preserved through law. That is what makes someone American. You can agree to this uniquely American sentiment no matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sheikh, Zoroastrian, following an indigenous belief—and yes, even if you are Muslim.

Beyond showing support for our fellow citizens (which is virtuous unto itself and needs no reason), fostering unity between people of all faiths is essential to the ongoing effort to combat violent extremism. To be sure, there are numerous extremist ideologies that drive violence and death, and only one of them claims some relation to Islam. Yet, ISIS and groups like it are highly skilled at luring young, ignorant people down a dangerous, evil path. The only long-term solution to this trend is to buttress American communities with the support and information they need to identify terrorist recruiters, counter their messages and protect their children. This is the case for communities of all faiths, but given the outsized threat ISIS poses today, it is particularly important that all Americans rally around our Muslim communities to help put an end to those who would corrupt our young people.

During the month of Ramadan, which began on the evening of June 5 and is expected to conclude on the evening of July 5, it is important that we all take the opportunity to wish peace and positivity to our fellow citizens who are Muslim. It lets everyone know that we will not be divided by hate, and we will not allow people of ill will to spread narratives that spark conflict within the American family. This is the United States, and we need to act like it.

And so, I happily say to my fellow citizens who are fasting for the next 30 days, Ramadan Kareem. (And if you’re having lamb for Iftar, give me a ring.)

Editor’s Note: Any comments posted below that are derogatory, hateful or obviously inflammatory will be deleted.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/06/06/an-open-letter-to-non-muslim-americans/feed/0Security Mom Explains Security in a Way We Can All Understandhttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/17/security-mom-explains-security-in-a-way-we-can-all-understand/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/17/security-mom-explains-security-in-a-way-we-can-all-understand/#commentsTue, 17 May 2016 12:06:55 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16359Juliette Kayyem’s new book, Security Mom, may be the most honest book I’ve read on how homeland security affects families and the communities in which we live. More importantly, it helps us understand, and explain to our family members, neighbors, and friends what it really means to live in a dangerous, high-threat environment without sacrificing our values or cowering in fear.

More autobiography than academic textbook, Kayyem traces her own journey from being an enthusiastic young lawyer addressing inequities in the workplace from a position at DOJ to becoming an expert on counterterrorism, emergency preparedness and community resiliency. Her career has included serving as: a member of the National Commission on Terrorism in 1999 (the Bremer Commission); the Massachusetts Homeland Security Director; the DHS head of Intergovernmental Affairs; and a Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer for the Boston Globe. She founded Kayyem Solutions, a homeland security consultancy, and also serves as an expert commentator on CNN, WGBH and has a weekly Podcast, also called “Security Mom,” where she interviews government and private sector officials about how to bring homeland security policy and procedures down to a practical, family-level discussion.

The book starts with Kayyem’s up-close and highly personal reflections as her vehicle was passed by law enforcement officials chasing the Boston Marathon bombers. As she noted, the Tsarnaev brothers lived in her Cambridge, Mass., neighborhood. They probably shopped at the same stores. Her children likely met them on the neighborhood streets and passed them on the sidewalks.

She then reflects on all of her personal and professional experiences that led her to that particular time and place, where her calming presence on local, national and international media helped keep things in its proper perspective, thereby driving greater situational awareness, community safety and channeling frustration into the “Boston Strong” culture. She talks about her family, growing up in Los Angeles in a family whose ancestors survived a rigorous immigrant journey.

Although an expert on counterterrorism, she points out that homeland security is more than just chasing bad people who want to do bad things. As an all-hazards agency, making the right call on when to close streets, declare a snow day or otherwise disrupting people’s routines is not an easy task. Sometimes there are no “right” answers – just answers where the risks are better known.

She writes openly and candidly about the emotional conflicts she experienced in making difficult choices meshing her professional training and her desire to comfort and protect her children – something with which almost every parent can identify. In one chapter, she discusses the incredible responsibility she undertook in being a key leader in DHS’ response to the Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, trying to manage public expectations, presidential-level communications, mediating among environmental experts, and being cognizant of the state-level concerns of a couple of governors (almost all of whom were politically opposed to the main policies of the Obama Administration.)

While leading a daily 9:15 AM (often quite intense) conference call with “stakeholders,” and while listening to an update from the National Weather Service, Kayyem’s youngest son, Jeremiah, lost one of his shoes. Forgetting that she had not placed her phone on mute, she posed the motherly question: “How the hell do you lose your Croc between the kitchen and the front door?” After a few moments of silence Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said: “Seems like we have a bigger mess than this spill, don’t we now?” Everyone laughed, except Kayyem.

It was the perfect example of how Kayyem refuses to put family on one side and profession on the other side of a teeter-totter and attempt to balance them. Instead she dumps them all into a gigantic bucket and merges, meshes and stirs them in a way that is helpful to families of all sizes and ages. Security cannot be separate from our daily lives; it must be integrated into every part of it.

In another chapter, Kayyem talks about the incredible difficulty in getting families of children who were in the same pre-school group as her children to take preparation for a disaster situation seriously. Even well-educated, middle and upper class families often believe that being prepared for “bad days” is something too scary to talk about with children; that bad events happen in other places to people who are not “like us;” that discussion of low probability/high consequence events are largely the province of political, conspiracy theory driven “wing-nuts” and media commentators intent on selling newspapers or driving television ratings. As Kayyem phrased it, they “had divided the home from the homeland.”

According to Kayyem, her definition of a security mom is that her “love for my children doesn’t stop at my front door.” Security and safety are obligations that belong to more than just the Department of Homeland Security or other federal agencies. The key to security and resiliency is preparation, she says. As she writes:

“We don’t need to live in fear of catastrophic disaster striking at any time. Preparedness means taking responsibility in the event that it might happen. When more people are prepared, fewer people will need help. That will minimize the possibility of greater catastrophe.”

“The burden of safety belongs to all of us. We need to know that we will survive and even bounce back as a nation and as individuals. There will be other attacks, or hurricanes, or oil spills, or earthquakes, any number of unpredictable events that will put citizens at risk or, worse – as we learned after Adam Lanza shot twenty children at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 – our children in harm’s way.

“As we have seen over and over again, “Never Again” and “Keep Calm” are futile ways to look at the world, damaging ways to look at a democracy, and passive ways to view a citizen’s own responsibility…. Bad things happen, and they will happen again. Here will be organized terrorists; summer hurricanes and winter storms; anthrax scares and deadly pandemics; a television network’s negligence and a would-be reality star’s arrogance; abandoned children in distant lands and massive oil spills in nearby waters.

“And there is a great, great deal each of us can do to make sure that we regain our momentum as soon and as successfully as possible. We have to see ourselves as a collection of resources that can be harnessed for our own safety and security.”

For anyone who has listened to Juliette Kayyem in person or through a media broadcast, you will immediately recognize her writing style in Security Mom. It is energetic, factually informed, highly rational, usefully practical and very fast-paced. It explains why she is so frequently asked: “What should we do?” And while she admits that she is reluctant to answer that question, what she writes is that we cannot prevent all bad things from happening, but we can be far better prepared when something does.

We can acknowledge our fears, our desires to protect family, and our emotional need for safety in a world where American values are under assault by forces with a very different set of values. What we need, she says, is a nation filled with “Security Moms.”

I submit that what she advocates in her book is more than that. She makes the case that we need security-aware, well-prepared families. Understanding that message makes the book an informative—as well as entertaining—“must read” for those who believe in individual responsibility, community response and resilience—and frankly for everyone else, too.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/17/security-mom-explains-security-in-a-way-we-can-all-understand/feed/0In Fight Against ISIS and AQ, What Does Success Look Like?http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/04/in-fight-against-isis-and-aq-what-does-success-look-like/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/04/in-fight-against-isis-and-aq-what-does-success-look-like/#commentsWed, 04 May 2016 12:16:14 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16339Something really novel happened in Washington yesterday. A number of really smart people were brought together in one room to hear, discuss and ask questions about some of the tough issues that will be shaping the future security of the United States.

Here is what was so unusual: There was no bloviating. No sign waving or roaring chants. No red, white and blue banners or overly patriotic backdrops adorning the room. And unlike other gatherings in Washington or around the country, there were no hurled insults or overt pandering “red-meat” lines to the crowd. Talk about refreshing!

The gathering was GWU’s Center for Cyber & Homeland Security annual program, “Securing Our Future,” which brings together a range of current and former national, homeland and cyber security experts from the public, private and academic sectors to share their insights on the state of affairs in various security issues.

While all of the day’s programming was valuable and informative, there was a question by the GWU Center’s Director, Frank Cilluffo, to a distinguished panel of national security experts that was accurately compared to having Mount Rushmore speak on the issue. His question to the panel: “Can you describe what success looks like with long, challenging and unconventional wars the United States is fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIL?”

Cofer Black, the legendary former CIA counterterrorism leader, explained that those looking for victory parades with pretty French girls throwing flowers over victorious soldiers would be disappointed. “That is not going to happen,” he said.

Matthew Olsen, the former director of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), now President of IronNet Cybersecurity, shared that, “We won’t see success for quite some time. This is a long-term fight.”

Olsen elaborated that success will come about as both Al Qaeda and ISIL slowly degrade in their capabilities, but it will be a “slow destruction” and not as fast as anyone would like.

As revealing as those two distinguished gentlemen’s remarks were, it was former U.S. Treasury official and frequent CBS News contributor Juan Zarate who offered three clear metrics to measure success, including:

Movements by Al Qaeda or ISIL cannot influence or disrupt U.S. strategic interests in that portion of the world.

U.S. allies in the region have the ability to contain the threat that these two organizations pose.

The ideology that Al Qaeda and ISIL put forward cannot be regenerated elsewhere and take root.

For the first time in a long time, it was great to hear some really solid thinking and analysis about the measures policymakers, security analysts, taxpayers and warfighters and their families have been seeking. To date, there has not been a lot of definition or clarity about what success looks like in an area of the world where success seems as out of the ordinary as a peaceful day.

The current environment in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere is by no one’s objective measure anything close to success. To date, the only success metrics we’ve had have been built around banner backdrops; a number of arbitrary dates on a calendar and the always-remembered and often-quoted campaign promises. None of those have any redeemable value when the stark reality of the operating environment with Al Qaeda and ISIL is as tenuous as it is today.

In their hour appearance at the GWU program, Zarate and his veteran national security peers dramatically elevated the analysis and insight we need to better communicate to the American public about a long, costly fight that is going to last longer still. None of the candidates running president for have offered such insight. Their audience-pandering sound bites of rage will not advance us towards the success we all want.

Yet, for one afternoon in Washington, it was great to hear some really smart people offer the metric we need. My hope and prayer is that those metrics can be achieved sometime in my lifetime. For now, I’d just be content to find a presidential candidate who is smart enough to listen to what Juan, Matthew and Cofer had to say.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/04/in-fight-against-isis-and-aq-what-does-success-look-like/feed/0Profiles in Security – Ehsan Zaffarhttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/02/profiles-in-security-ehsan-zaffar/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/02/profiles-in-security-ehsan-zaffar/#commentsMon, 02 May 2016 12:12:05 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16329Absolute security is unobtainable. Disasters will strike, violent extremists will attack, and our systems, infrastructure and planning will not always stop every threat. The challenge for the United States is to create resilient systems and communities, so when a bad day arrives, the damage is limited and the recovery is rapid.

This emphasis on building resilience is often missed in the general public awareness of the Department of Homeland Security, which sometimes assumes DHS’ mission begins and ends with TSA airport screening. In truth, there are legions of individuals in the Department striving to enhance our national readiness and resilience. One of these people is Ehsan Zaffar, who works at the intersection of security and civil rights, helping to ensure DHS continues to secure the nation without violating individual civil liberties.

Security Debrief spoke with Zaffar to better understand how the Department draws in professionals from diverse fields to better achieve the DHS mission. In his case, Zaffar is a practicing lawyer from California, where he worked with low-income communities in crisis. Before DHS, Zaffar founded the Los Angeles Mobile Legal Aid Clinic and also worked to provide legal assistance to communities in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And Zaffar has served as a mediator, working to help resolve intractable disputes over difficult issues between and among diverse communities, such as faith-based groups. It’s an unlikely background for a man who now serves as a Senior Advisor at the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Today, Zaffar leads DHS’ efforts to implement United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.” This work takes Zaffar to communities around the nation and to countries around the world, where he speaks, teaches, and learns about building community resilience and supporting religious freedom and human rights.

“Resilient communities and effective homeland security are two sides of the same coin,” said Zaffar. “When citizens are empowered, informed and willing partners in the national homeland security mission, we all enjoy a higher standard of security.”

A graduate of the Pepperdine University School of Law, with a certificate in Dispute Resolution from the Straus Institute, Zaffar now teaches courses on civil rights and national security at George Washington University, John Marshall Law School and at other universities, helping cultivate the next generation of leaders.

“What I see in my students is a genuine hunger to bring about meaningful change in the world,” said Zaffar. “For those of us already working towards a safer nation, one of our obligations is to help encourage and nurture young people who will create a more community-oriented security environment.”

Too often, homeland security is a thankless endeavor. But Zaffar, like thousands of other DHS employees who toil without much recognition, is not concerned with thanks. While his roles have changed over the years, his singular motivation remains the empowerment and advancement of citizens throughout the country.

“Serving in a ‘watchdog’ role at DHS moves towards the ultimate goal of any security effort, which is to ensure that we continue to enjoy our rights, freedoms and way of life,” said Zaffar. “We must not sacrifice our individual liberties in the quest for greater national security.”

Do you know an unsung hero at the Department who deserves some recognition? Share your stories with us and help shine a light on all the important work being done at DHS that is seldom acknowledged.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/05/02/profiles-in-security-ehsan-zaffar/feed/0Amid 2016 Presidential Race, America is Primed for Extremist Violencehttp://securitydebrief.com/2016/03/14/amid-2016-presidential-race-america-is-primed-for-extremist-violence/
http://securitydebrief.com/2016/03/14/amid-2016-presidential-race-america-is-primed-for-extremist-violence/#commentsMon, 14 Mar 2016 16:05:50 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16270The inevitable happened on Friday—fighting erupted outside of a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. Hundreds of Trump protestors and supporters scuffled, and the rally was cancelled. This was only a small example of things to come. The 2016 presidential race is enhancing the conditions that lead to violent extremism, and based on the primary votes thus far, it’s only going to get worse.

On its own, a political contest does not generate violent extremism. Yet, the factors that create the potential for homegrown terrorism are reaching a level we have not previously seen in this country.

There are three elements that facilitate violent extremism: a sense of alienation; a legitimizing ideology; and an enabling environment. At the nexus of these factors is a flashpoint for extremist violence.

The nation is deeply divided along economic, social, cultural, political, religious and other lines. Mistrust between Muslims and non-Muslims; conflict between law enforcement and African American communities; fear and anger over how to address the 11 million undocumented people living in the country; deep tension between a progressive and conservative vision for the United States—these and other evident trends are contributing to a sense of alienation in communities across the country.

Meanwhile, there are a growing number of extremist groups oriented around each point of conflict. Racial, religious and issue-driven ideologies have long been a part of the American landscape, and the ideas that motivate these groups are bedfellows with a sense of alienation.

The reason the 2016 presidential contest is enhancing the potential for violence is because it comes at a time when we are divided and awash in extremist ideologies. Based on its participants, the presidential race is creating the enabling environment that completes the perfect storm of violent extremism.

Violence is Already Occurring

Consider recent examples of homegrown violent extremism that have captured only fleeting public attention:

On February 27, at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Orange County, California, three people were stabbed as counter-protestors clashed with KKK members.

In 2015, there was a 14% rise in the number of hate groups in the United States, a commensurate increase for anti-government groups, and an increase in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and Black separatist organizations, according to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This comes in addition to the FBI’s investigations into Muslim extremism plots in all 50 states.

These are troubling, growing trends. And then in walks Donald J. Trump.

Rhetoric Fueling the Fire

We have heard much talk, notably from Mr. Trump, about rejecting “political correctness.” That phrase has often been cover for divisive, sometimes bigoted remarks. Unchecked, this affinity for political incorrectness is making it acceptable to say (and potentially do) a range of hateful things that in any other context would be widely rejected as unacceptable. The list of Mr. Trump’s disturbing comments is long, including his early campaign remark about Hispanics being rapists and murderers, his dance with the KKK through muddled messages of rejection, and the often repeated jokes about being able to murder someone without losing voters.

These are bad enough, but the larger problem is that what’s said from the stump doesn’t stop with the New York billionaire. His rhetoric infects others, whipping up a frenzy of even more inflammatory talk. It is precisely this kind of language that heaps gasoline on the fires of intolerance, which is at the core of extremism. As public figures rage, it in turn feeds a dangerous vitriol that creates an enabling environment where an alienated individual embracing an extremist ideology is more prone to cross the line into violence.

Case in point: On March 1, at a Trump rally in Louisville, Kentucky, members of a white supremacist group, the Traditionalist Worker Party, reportedly assaulted several African American protestors, shoving them and using racial slurs, as well as chanting, “You’re scum, your time will come.”

Unequivocally, many of Mr. Trump’s statements should be condemned, and we need to understand that political rhetoric has very real implications. It’s not just talk; it has the potential to result in tragedy. It sets up animosity and primes people for conflict. And it is from that context that homegrown violent extremists emerge.

Those who seek to lead the country should begin by leading the nation away from this very dangerous environment. Mr. Trump must exercise greater responsibility for the discord he is engendering, or else he will be complicit in the violence that is sure to result from it.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2016/03/14/amid-2016-presidential-race-america-is-primed-for-extremist-violence/feed/0Don’t Know Much About Islam…And That’s a Problemhttp://securitydebrief.com/2015/12/19/dont-know-much-about-islamand-thats-a-problem/
http://securitydebrief.com/2015/12/19/dont-know-much-about-islamand-thats-a-problem/#commentsSat, 19 Dec 2015 17:19:09 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16145With the 24/7 cable news coverage of ISIS and terrorism, there has been a lot of loose talk about what Islam does and does not teach. However, much of this banter comes from people who have no idea what they’re talking about. This yields uninformed discussions and misinformation about how the Islamic texts direct the actions and lives of the ummah, the global Muslim population.

The level of ignorance, particularly here in the United States, is somewhat understandable – the media does a very poor job of explaining in plain language to a largely Christian or secular population just what Islam is (because the journalists themselves don’t usually have much knowledge of the faith). Who am I to say anything? Well, in addition to my work with Muslim communities and time spent in the Middle East, I wrote a 150-page historical analysis of the origins of Islamic prayer (which I’ve heard is an excellent sleeping aid), and I taught the secular study of religion at the university level.

Secular study means we do not approach a religion from a point of “truth” or personal belief, but instead, with as much objectivity as we can muster, we strive to understand each religion on its own terms. As we head into the holiday season and many Americans celebrate their religious traditions, it’s worth taking this fleeting awareness of religion overall to inject a little knowledge and understanding into what is a very important conversation.

And so I ask you to do what I used to ask students to do when they came to class: set your faith aside for a little bit, and try to think about religion in a neutral, non-judgmental way.

Where Did Islam Come From?

Islam’s prophetic figure, Mohammed, was a merchant before he was a messenger. He came from Mecca, which at the time was a stopping point for the trade caravans that led north to Palestine/Syria. More importantly, however, Mecca was considered a holy place, a neutral gathering point where fighting between polytheistic indigenous tribes was forbidden by local custom.

You may have seen photos of the large square black cube in Mecca around which Muslims walk and pray during hajj, a religious pilgrimage. It’s called the Ka’ba, and that box, in some form, existed before Mohammed. It was always a religious object, in which the indigenous tribes would place icons of their patron deities, symbolizing the conflict-free nature of the city.

The Arabian Peninsula at this time was home to an array of religions. There were the indigenous beliefs of the tribes that lived on the peninsula. There were many Jewish tribes practicing different versions of Judaism. There were Zoroastrians from the Persian Empire to the northeast, and Christians from the Byzantine Empire to the northwest (as well as monks of various Christian traditions).

As Mohammed grew older, he became increasingly philosophical in his thought. He spent many hours and days away from the city, meditating and thinking. Tradition says that during one of these contemplative instances, the Angel Gabriel came to Mohammed and said, in so many words, God has a message, and you’re going to be the messenger.

The story goes that after a fair amount of skepticism, Mohammed ultimately accepted his calling, and he began to repeat the messages he heard. The first messages were short, somewhat general and focused on the notion of monotheism. These suras, as they’re called, make up the Qur’an, which is considered by Muslims to be the literal word of God and not a theological teaching from Mohammed himself.

How Did the Muslim Community Start?

As Mohammed set about communicating the messages to the people of Mecca, a couple things happened. First, a small but devoted group in the city embraced this new message. Second, the ruling tribe in Mecca did not like that. The Islamic message flew directly in the face of their polytheistic religions. As such, over 12 years, the new adherents to Islam trickled out of Mecca to safer places, and in 622, Mohammed snuck out of Mecca at night to avoid assassination by the ruling tribe. He and his followers traveled north, to Medina.

In Medina, Mohammed encountered tribes in conflict, and he served as a mediator between the tribes. In that mediation, we see one of the first examples of a political outgrowth of what Mohammed was reciting. He drafted what you might call a constitution for Medina, outlining the relationship between the Jewish and Muslim people in the city, establishing processes for maintaining peace and dividing authority. And it was here that Mohammed delivered longer, more robust suras with far more information about how to follow and understand Islam.

Every tribe on the Peninsula at that time used warfare as an expected part of trade and movement. In the United States, we litigate. In the 6th and 7th centuries, conflict resolution was substantially bloodier for everyone. As the population of Muslim believers grew, they naturally accrued a sizable military force, one that could pose a threat to the ruling tribe in Mecca. When Mohammed led his followers back to Mecca, the city surrendered and dramatically swelled the number of believers who, in some cases, weren’t offered much choice in what the city religion would be going forward. (For the interested reader, check out the prosthelytizing activity in ancient Israel that occurred more than a millennium before Mohammed. Not much choice there either. Likewise, Constantine did not provide his subjects a choice when he declared his empire Christian.)

After the conquest of Mecca, the community of Muslims grew rapidly, and alongside this growth, the Persian and Byzantine empires, exhausted from constant war, left a power vacuum in the region. The unified tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, with their newly acquired belief system, filled that vacuum. It became an empire governed by a religious tradition, just as the Persian and Byzantine empires had operated before it.

Is a Religion that Presents a Political Structure Dangerous?

Today, those warning of the inherent threat in Islam fret, “it is a political system as well as a religion!” Well, that’s true, and it’s true for the other Abrahamic traditions as well (even Christianity). Something that’s not easy to wrap our heads around is that in the 6th and 7th centuries, when Islam grew, the notion of secular governance did not exist. Not in Byzantium, where the state religion was Christianity. Not in Persia, where the state religion was Zoroastrianism. Take it back a couple thousand years, and we see the same phenomenon in ancient Israel.

Governance as we know it today in the United States is exceedingly young relative to the history of humanity. For most of our history, religion and politics were indistinguishable. The king, queen, emperor, what have you was also a religious figure. Before and during the time of Jesus of Nazareth, for example, some Roman currency was stamped with the phrase, “Son of God,” referring to the emperor.

Even with our modern enlightened view of democracy, our political systems are still influenced by religion. One easy example: modern Israel is self-defined as a Jewish state whose legislature includes deeply devout Orthodox Jews, their worldview defined by ancient, religious texts. Libraries have been filled on the relationship between Christianity and American democracy. Many people still refer to the United States as a “Judeo-Christian” country, and there is evidence of this in law as well as our national identity. Check out the $1 bill. In who do we trust?

Even today, it’s not possible to totally separate religion and politics. People build and run political systems, and so they inevitability base their decisions, to some degree, on the religious ideas that define their identity and worldview.

Is Islam Inherently Dangerous?

Now, to the evil elephant in the room. The so-called Islamic State.

The devils murdering and raping people in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere are evil. No doubt. I’ve read all of the Islamic sacred texts many times, and while there are some things that are unsettling, there’s a lot ISIS is doing that has zero basis in Islam. I know there are people on TV saying otherwise, but they are not speaking from a point of knowledge. They’re speaking from fear, from rhetoric, from ignorance or even from hate.

There are pluralistic, Muslim-majority countries the world over that fit democratic ideas alongside religious traditions. These systems aren’t always perfect, but they are certainly nothing like what ISIS is doing. And perhaps this is the most important nuance for you to take with you. The so-called Islamic State is not the only outcome of a political read on Islam. It’s just one possible outcome, and even at that, ISIS is making up much of their rules as they go.

It’s true, there are passages in Islamic sacred literature that, read in a certain light, might suggest things that make the secular American uncomfortable. There’s stuff in there that makes me uncomfortable. And even though many Muslims might never say it out loud, there’s stuff in there that bugs some of them too. But that does not mean that Islam is itself somehow threatening—at least, no more so than any other religion. (For example, I would direct you to Leviticus and some of the punishments that divine Hebrew law meted out for a range of offenses, many of them minor by today’s standards.)

What then is the threat we face today? Is it Islam? No, that’s far too simplistic. Is it “political Islam?” That’s almost a nonsensical phrase; all religions are to a degree political. Is it “political Islam that governs a caliphate?” Only if that caliphate looks like ISIS and declares war on us (and right now, ISIS accounts for 0.01% of the world’s Muslims).

No, it’s more fundamental than that. Our greatest threat is twofold:

1. Unchecked growth of a violent ideology that draws from but does not define Islam; and
2. An uncontested worldview that pits Muslims against non-Muslims.

We will not be able to address either of these points if we talk, plan and operate from a position of ignorance. Neither the fear-mongering pundits on TV nor the murderers in Iraq and Syria are helping this. They’re making it worse by the minute. We can undercut both of their hurtful messages with just a little information, understanding and communication.

No matter what you believe, I wish you peaceful weeks ahead and a very Happy New Year.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2015/12/19/dont-know-much-about-islamand-thats-a-problem/feed/8Trump’s Muslim Insults – A Clear Disservice to American Securityhttp://securitydebrief.com/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-insults-a-clear-disservice-to-american-security/
http://securitydebrief.com/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-insults-a-clear-disservice-to-american-security/#commentsTue, 08 Dec 2015 12:20:43 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=16113Donald Trump’s latest “policy” bombshell – a proposal to bar all Muslims from entering the United States – is going to be interpreted by many (if not most) Muslims as an insult, which is exactly what those responsible for America’s security do not want or need at this stage as they attempt to formulate a successful strategy for minimizing homegrown extremism among its Muslim population.

By directing a broad, sweeping and indiscriminate suspicion at all Muslims, Trump demonstrates yet again one of his biggest talents – dishonoring, humiliating and insulting people on a grand scale. This is not really surprising, considering the man’s proven career-making capacity to insult and abuse people (e.g., “You’re Fired!” as well as any number of campaign-trail slights), except this time, Mr. Trump is aiming his big insult-guns at a huge (billion+) community that counts honor and community maintenance among its core values.

If the United States stands any chance of getting to grips even partially with the danger of homegrown extremism within its Muslim community (which is only one of the communities within which this challenge exists), it is by succeeding in enlisting that very community to become the bulwark in this effort. To that end, whoever is charged with this task will have to build bridges of trust, respect and honor with these communities. Only if and when the majority of Muslim communities in the United States become fully integrated members in this counter-extremism effort does it stand a chance of success.

Mr. Trump’s world is apparently nuance-free. For him, there are only two ways to relate to other people: dominate them or grovel before them. Where most reasonable people will probably understand that insulting, alienating and angering entire communities (particularly those whose cooperation you dearly desire and need and who feel beleaguered, accused and besmirched at this time) is not the best approach, Mr. Trump chooses exactly that path.

This path is a particularly poor choice because between dominating and groveling there is a universe of possibilities that may lead to more security and better relations. One such alternative approach is called “Assertive Honoring.” It combines a clear understanding and annunciation of one’s principles and the values and actions that derive from these principles, while at the same time acting in a way that genuinely honors the interlocutor’s humanity, culture, needs and intricacies of the interface between that culture and the host culture. Such an approach enables the establishment of an eye-level dialogue with people from other cultures who may have a different perspective on the questions and challenges at hand. It by no means removes or nullifies real-life challenges that need discussing and resolving, but it creates the platforms that enable honest dealing with these challenges, without them being obscured by layers of frustration, a sense of helplessness and exclusion.

Employing such an approach requires first and foremost a familiarity with and understanding of other cultures, as well as an appreciation for the complexity of bridging cross-cultural gaps. It requires both sides in the dialogue to establish early on a simple set of common goals – to create the conditions that will help mitigate radicalization in a process that sustains the self-respect of all involved.

Coming on the heels of other jaw-dropping “policy” diamonds and other “proposals” such as building a wall between the United States and Mexico, Trump’s latest policy suggestion is not surprising – but it carries within it a great potential of actually increasing the harm done to the United States and as such it should be rejected and dismissed by all those who truly care about the safety and security of all Americans and about the civil liberties of all Americans, as prescribed in the Constitution.

Dr. Doron Pely is the Executive Director of the Sulha Research Center in Israel. Doron studies and teaches Muslim customary conflict and conflict management practices. His experience combines military (Lieutenant), police intelligence (field and analysis), business intelligence, executive duties, and academic and field research. Doron earned his PhD in Middle East Studies from King’s College, London.